that "the house of representatives will derive its power from the people of America." "The people of America" are, of course, the nation, the states being the provinces. The very number (39) in which the above phrase is used, refutes the perverters a thousand times over. But let us ask the constitution itself, whose representatives they are? who they are elected by and whose power and means they officially use?

1. Article I., § 2, says the representatives are to be "chosen every second year by the people of the several states."

2. "The electors [i. e. the voters] in each state" are to be such as the state authorizes. [Ibid.]

3. Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several states" according to numbers. [Ibid.]

4. "Each state shall have at least one representative." [Ibid.]

5. The same article and section names the states, and fixes the number each state shall “be entitled to choose " till the apportionment.

6. The same article provides for the governor issuing writs of election for filling vacancies in "the representation from any state.”

Note also the following, in Article II. § 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress."

We find, then, that "each STATE shall have" these agents, and each "shall be entitled to choose " them. Voting powers and eligibility to office are fixed, of original right, by the state, and are confined to her own citizens and members. It is obviously not the people at large, but societies of people, that are to be represented; and it is equally obvious that republics, for federal self-government, are to send representatives, as well as senators, to a congress of themselves.

The point of distinction between the consolidated and the federal form is the individuality of states, and their complete independence of will, which we shall always find to have been carefully preserved.

How purely mythical, then, is the national idea commonly taught ! Not a line in all American history or records agrees with it. Everything shows the polity to be a federation, i. e. "the united states." The instrument evidencing it is properly called the federal constitution. So far, however, as the states have willed that it should be, it is national in operation upon their citizens, and it is national to the outside world. Madison, Hamilton, and all the fathers said the constitution did not attempt to consolidate the states, but contemplated them as absolutely sovereign commonwealths, in league for self-preservation and self-government. [See Part I., Ch. VII.]

The expounders assume-1. the nation; 2. the supreme-law dogma; and 3. the subjection of the states to this supreme law; and pick little crumbs of comfort, if not support, out of detached phrases, with which their theory is consistent, though it is inconsistent with the constitution and every fact of history, and especially with truth and justice!

...

The states said Lincoln have no "status," or "power," but what is "RESERVED TO THEM," in the constitution, by the nation- in other words, no rights but those the nation has allotted to them in its supreme law. Amendment X. reads: "The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, . . . are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people:" thus showing that all the powers granted or vested by the constitution are delegated; and that all which the delegators did not put in the constitution, they must have KEPT OUT. This is the necessary meaning of "reserved" in the 10th amendment, and "retained" in the 9th.

66

Why was the phrase "reserved to," used? I shall try to show in the proper place, that, (as Livingston, Hamilton, Madison, Marshall, and others viewed it,) the people, as commonwealths, were respectively distributing their powers between their home and their federal governments; and in "reserving" or retaining" powers and rights, they had to reserve to the state governments, where many already were, or to themselves, who owned all the residue. It must be kept in mind that in the common parlance of those days, "state" was convertible with "state-government," as well as with the commonwealth of people.

If it be kept in mind that the states are speaking; that they are delegating, and they reserving; that there are, politically, no other people than states, and no other states than people, we shall see clearly that the phrase "to the states, or to the people' meant to the state governments, or to the states. Of the correctness of this view, New York and other states give conclusive proof. Her language is "Every power. . . which is not . . . delegated to the . . . departments of the government . . . remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same." [See also App. D. No. 2, and illustration, p. 310, infra.]

CHAPTER V.

GARBLINGS.

INTERPRETATION No. 8. - GARBLING THE RATIFICATIONS.

IN his "Commentaries" [Vol. I., § 356] Judge Story says: "It

The

the people of the several states, assented to, as a constitution. language of these instruments uniformly is, 'we, &c., do assent to and ratify the said constitution.'" The reader will please note the "&c." Judge Story further says, that the language of the conventions of Massachusetts and New Hampshire is peculiar, and he professes to quote it, as follows: "The convention, &c., acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, in affording to the people of the united states, in the course of His Providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without force or surprise, of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new constitution, &c., do assent to, and ratify, the said constitution." Please note, in this extract, two cases of "&c. ;" also Judge Story's italics. Daniel Webster, in his speech of 1833, [III. Webster's Works 476,] garbles this ratification as Judge Story does, so that the present exposé applies equally to him. It is the opinion of some, however, that Mr. Webster was often misled, as to facts, by the investigators he confided in.

And we find the same mysterious and suspicious "&c.," in all the quotations the writers of the school make from the ratifications. For fuller exposure, it is well to bring several to view. E. D. Mansfield, in teaching political truth to the young people of our country, says, on page 171 of his "Political Grammar:" "The language of the ratifications is remarkably uniform and remarkably explicit, as to the source whence the constitution receives its authority and force. All the ratifications commence, 'We, the delegates of the people thereof,' and all terminate by making their ratifications in the name of their constituents, the people." This is evidently a studied statement. One or two more will suffice out of many I have before me. the war, an enterprising American in England, under the auspices of

During

the United States Legation, got up a "Bacon's Guide to American Politics," for the purpose of preventing the English people and government from sympathizing with and favoring the South, in which "Guide" the same deception is practised, as follows: "All the ratifications commence with 'We, the people,' and all terminate by making the ratifications in the name of our constituents, the people.' Thus the states, in their official capacity, proposed the constitution, . . but it receives its sanction and validity from the whole people, in their sovereign capacity."

And Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, in a letter to Edward Everett, dated June 3, 1861, wrote that "the duly authorized delegates of the people of South Carolina executed an instrument, under seal, declaring that they, 'in the name and behalf' of that people, assent to and ratify the said constitution."

Now, what does "&c.," or the ellipsis, mean, in all these quotations? or, rather, what does it hide? Simply this: it conceals words which completely refute the assertions made, and conclusively prove that the people, as independent states, organized and acting as such, and not the people as a nation, are the parties to the federal constitution, and the sole sources of its authority, and that this instrument evidences a federation of sovereignties. And, if the above writers did not think so, why did they invariably suppress the pith of these ordinances? Indeed, they could not have believed otherwise.

The true Versions. Referring generally to the acts of ratification, all to be found in I. Elliott's Debates, 319-337, I will copy the ordaining words of two or three of them, so that the reader can see, in juxtaposition, the garbled and the true expressions. Here are the suppressed words, and the very pith, of the ratification of Judge Story's own state: "The convention" [here follow the introductory words above quoted, which the reader must recur to, in order fully to appreciate the matter] do, in the "name and in behalf of the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the constitution for the United States of America." The ratifying act passed by a vote of 187 to 168.

...

Here is the pith of the act of New Jersey: "In convention of the state of New Jersey, we, the delegates of the state of New Jersey, ... do hereby, for and on the behalf of the people of the said state of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm the same, and every part thereof." Passed by unanimous vote.

Here is the substantial portion of Virginia's ordinance: "We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, now met in convention, .

in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, do, by these presents, assent to, and ratify the constitution recommended, . . . hereby an

nouncing to all whom it may concern, that the said constitution is binding on the said people." Vote, 89 to 79.

66

...

Here are the words of Georgia : ... We, the delegates of the people of the state of Georgia, in convention met, . . . do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given by the people of the said state for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully and entirely assent to, ratify, and adopt the said constitution." Vote, unanimous. All the ordinances are in substance the same; and all contain the word "ratify," referring to the act of the political body, the state.

What was the Motive? - Now, the purpose of these garblings is obvious. If the perverters had written and printed the suppressed passages, they would have destroyed their theory, for the words suppressed show the states to be the only possible creators and delegators. But, while thus engaged, they often unwittingly recognize these acts of ratification, as conveying from the organized people, i. e. the commonwealths, the entire life and strength of the constitution. example, see the above words of Judge Story: "The people of the several states assented to" the said constitution, by "solemn instruments of ratification." This admits all I claim, for no one pretends that the original "establishment," i. e. the vitality and validity of the pact or constitution, could come from any other source than these acts of nine or more states, spoken through nine or more conventions. An instrument prepared by the deputies of thirteen such parties, which the said parties consecutively and independently adopt, and which contains their provisions for the general government of their people, must be a federalizing instrument, whether sanctioned by signature, seal, proxy, delegation, convention, commissioners, ambassadors, or any other mode and means of expressing will; and the product of such instrument is necessarily a federation, i. e. a union of states. How can any intelligent man, in the face of these facts, innocently assert that our general polity is an association of people as a nation, instead of a society of commonwealths a republic of republics - "the united states"? What chance have facts, compacts, reason, argument, and the sacred faith of the fathers, against the so-called Massachusetts school, with its command of the press; and where its disciples constantly speak and write such errors as are in the following extract from Motley's letter to the London Times, heretofore quoted from: ". . . The name of no state is mentioned in the whole document ; the states themselves are only mentioned to receive commands or prohibitions, and the people of the united states is the single party by whom alone the instrument is executed. The constitution was not drawn up by the states, it was not promulgated in the name of the states, it was